Now, if you are a New York state judge and you need to eliminate a big-mouth attorney who dared to:
- move to recuse you multiple times,
- questioned legitimacy of your elections,
- raised the issue of your conflicts of interest (prior representation of social services for 27 years in cases where the same social services appear in front of you as a petitioner in bench trials, and you assess their credibility); reasonable attorneys know about that one, but wisely keep mum about it;
- investigated your background through FOIL requests,
- raised issues of your improper behavior in court in the media,
- complained about you to the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked to take you off the bench,
- asked the New York State Attorney General to bring a quo warranto proceeding against you as a usurper of public office (now that was a good one, New York State Attorney General is your attorney and also appears in front of you against the big-mouth attorney, so did she really think he will choose to oust you instead of using your good graces in court) and, finally, when everything else failed,
- sued you in state and federal courts.
What is a judge to do with such a pest? Especially if what the pest is saying is the truth?
Here is a ready recipe prepared by joint efforts of Delaware County judge Carl F. Becker, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and, of course, with the help of the multi-hat office of the New York State Attorney General who claims to protect the public from official misconduct, but is instead your legal protector no matter what you do to that public.
Disregard the big-mouth attorney's request to step down because of your bias. She will have no recourse if you tell her to her face that you are not biased, even if the entire world knows for a fact that you are. What is she going to do? Complain to the Judicial Conduct Commission? Those guys will never discipline you, you know that. They will sent you her complaint, and you will be able to get even, so don't you worry.
Hide all of your conflict of interests and knowledge of extrajudicial facts, because - how will she find out if she can't? And if she tries, you'll sanction her.
Don't worry if she would bring a motion to recuse.
Even though New York state law requires you to step down where your impartiality may be reasonably questioned, and the same is required by constitutional federal law, New York state courts allow you to be that "reasonable person" deciding whether you are biased or not. And how can you consider yourself (YOURSELF!) biased?! No way.
Then, you sanction the big-mouth attorney for frivolous conduct, order her to pay a couple/10/50 thousand dollars so that she would shut up and crawl into a corner somewhere, and then you send your sanctions to the attorney disciplinary committee.
The big-mouth attorney may, of course, sue you in federal court for retaliation, but you know she will fail because your malicious and corrupt acts as a judge are protected by judicial immunity. Your brothers in federal courts created that doctrine for you, so you can do whatever you want to the big-mouth attorney and she cannot do anything to you. Isn't that what makes your job so great?
The big-mouth attorney may, of course, appeal your sanctions, but she will fail, first, because a judge will not pick out another judge's eye, so to say, and appellate judges are your brothers, and also because appellate courts have "tunnel-vision" and will not look outside of the record of one sanction when you imposed 3, and thus the pattern of your misconduct will be unreachable, and the courts will affirm the sanction.
One correction, the appellate court will exercise their "tunnel-vision" "it is outside of the record" point of view only when the big-mouth asks for protection, the same "tunnel-vision" review does not apply to you.
You can gather dirt on attorney from as many sources outside of the record as you like and present it as an unsworn witness or through unidentified hearsay sources, your appellate brothers will still accept it. More points for you and against the big-mouth attorney.
After the federal court dismisses the big-mouth attorney's lawsuit for retaliation, you can impose a couple more sanctions on her, for good measure, so that your previous sanctions stick by weight of sheer numbers. This way you will make sure the big-mouth attorney will be disbarred (or at least suspended) for sure and will not darken your horizon while you are on the bench.
And if she will try to make any motions to vacate your sanctions, now based on a pattern of retaliation from different proceedings, be assured that at least some of your lower-court brothers will feel for you and will not allow the big-mouth attorney to bring those motions. To claim a judge did something wrong! The gall!
Once the big-mouth attorney has been safely stalled on all of her efforts to undo your punishment for impertinence, you can safely make sure that all of your sanctions have reached the disciplinary committee and took root there, sit back and enjoy the slaughter of the big-mouth attorney who dared to complain against you and especially sue you.
And remember - those folks on the disciplinary committee are practicing attorneys who may happen to appear in front of you one of these days. They will not dare to cross you. They have their own licenses to think about. And for them, eliminating one competitor will have its own advantage. So more points for you here, too.